I’ll need to think about most of this for longer (and/or discuss in person). One quick comment in the interim:
I think the converse image of your Sierpinski triangle will better describe the true theory—Knightian all the way down, with various degrees of Bayesian-ness in regions where we are willing to spend lots of compute.
This is an excellent point. Though note that it might just be a matter of flipping your point of view: from inside one of those holes looking out, everything might be Knightian by default with small regions of Bayesian-ness. (More correlated with “simple domains” than “domains where we’re willing to spend a lot of compute”.)
I’ll need to think about most of this for longer (and/or discuss in person). One quick comment in the interim:
This is an excellent point. Though note that it might just be a matter of flipping your point of view: from inside one of those holes looking out, everything might be Knightian by default with small regions of Bayesian-ness. (More correlated with “simple domains” than “domains where we’re willing to spend a lot of compute”.)